NDLI: Dauvaram Nirmalkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Penal Code 1860 – ss.304 Part I and 302 and Exception 1 to s.300
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – ss.304 Part I and 302 and Exception 1 to s.300 – Murder – Conviction of appellant by Courts below u/s.302 IPC for murder of his brother – Challenge to – Held: The fact that the appellant and the deceased were together the night when the deceased suffered the fatal injuries is established and proven – Therefore, s.106 of the Evidence Act gets attracted and in the absence of any breakin or third-party involvement, the chain of facts and circumstances established beyond doubt, bares that the appellant and no other person was the perpetrator who had inflicted the injuries on his brother – However, the acts of provocation on the basis of which the appellant caused the death of his brother were both sudden and grave and there was loss of self-control – The case therefore fell under Exception 1 to s.300 IPC – Deceased was addicted to alcohol and used to constantly torment, abuse and threaten the appellant – On the night of the occurrence, the deceased had consumed alcohol and had told the appellant to leave the house and if not, he would kill the appellant – There was sudden loss of self-control on account of a ‘slow burn’ reaction followed by the final and immediate provocation – Exception 1 to s.300 IPC applies when due to grave and sudden provocation, the offender, deprived of the power of self-control, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation – Applying the provocation exception, conviction of appellant converted from s.302 to Part I of s.304 IPC – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106. Penal Code, 1860 – Exception 1 to s.300 – Defence of provocation under Exception 1 to s.300 IPC – Test for application of Exception 1 to s.300 IPC – Held: The law attaches great importance to two things when defence of provocation is taken under Exception 1 to s.300 IPC – First, whether there was an intervening period for the passion to cool and for the accused to regain dominance and control over his mind – Secondly, the mode of resentment should bear some relationship to the sort of provocation that has been given – Exception 1 to s.300 recognises that when a reasonable person is tormented continuously, he may, at one point of time, erupt and reach a break point whereby losing self-control, going astray and committing the offence – However, sustained provocation principle does not do away with the requirement of immediate or the final provocative act, words or gesture, which should be verifiable – Further, this defence would not be available if there is evidence of reflection or planning as they mirror exercise of calculation and premeditation – The primary obligation of the court is to examine the circumstances from the point of view of a person of reasonable prudence, if there was such grave and sudden provocation, as to reasonably conclude that a person placed in such circumstances can temporarily lose self-control and commit the offence in the proximity to the time of provocation. Evidence Act, 1872 – ss. 25, 26, 27 – Confession – Admissibility of – Held: No part of a First Information Report lodged by an accused with the police as an implicatory statement can be admitted into evidence – However, the statement can be admitted to identify the accused as the maker of the report – Further, that part of the information in the statement, which is distinctly related to the ‘fact’ discovered in consequence of such information, can also be admitted into evidence u/s.27 of the Evidence Act, provided that the discovery of the fact must be in relation to a material object.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 786
Petitioner	Dauvaram Nirmalkar
Respondent	State Of Chhattisgarh
SCR	[2022] 7 S.C.R. 5
Judgement Date	2022-08-02
Case Number	1124

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Dauvaram Nirmalkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Please Log-in to view this content

Trimbak Vs. State of Maharashtra

Thankachan and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala

Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Arumugam Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

Suraj Jagannath Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Samsuddhin Sheikh Vs. State of Goa

Gali Venkataiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu Etc Vs. State of Punjab and Anr

Arjun Vs. State of Maharashtra

Dauvaram Nirmalkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Dauvaram Nirmalkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Trimbak Vs. State of Maharashtra

Thankachan and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala

Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Arumugam Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

Suraj Jagannath Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Samsuddhin Sheikh Vs. State of Goa

Gali Venkataiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Gurwinder Singh @ Sonu Etc Vs. State of Punjab and Anr

Arjun Vs. State of Maharashtra

Dauvaram Nirmalkar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh